Effects of Ecological Information on Judgments about Scenic Impacts of Timber Harvest

Journal of Environmental Management (1996) 46, 31–41

Effects of Ecological Information on Judgments about Scenic Impacts of Timber Harvest Mark W. Brunson and Douglas K. Reiter Department of Forest Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, U.S.A. Received 16 November 1994

The public is unlikely to accept ecosystem management practices unless they believe its ecological benefits outweigh its potentially adverse impacts. This study tested whether information about ecological benefits of ecosystem management can improve acceptance of impacts to visual resources. Students and office workers rated photographs of forest stands showing traditional and ecosystem management timber harvests. Half of the respondents first heard a 5 minute informational message about ecosystem management; the other half did not. Acceptability scores for some ecosystem management stands exceeded those for clear cuts or commercially thinned stands. Ratings varied significantly for different views of the same stand, but not between students and office workers or between message and control groups. However, there was a significant interactive effect: office workers who heard the message, rated the ecosystem managed stands as more acceptable than did the control group, while students who heard the message judged the stands as less acceptable. Managers hoping to influence public beliefs about ecosystem management must craft informational messages carefully, because poorly targeted messages may have  1996 Academic Press Limited unintended effects. Keywords: scenic quality, ecosystem management, timber harvest, information, public acceptability.

1. Introduction Public land managers in North America have had to modify their practices to reflect the demand for greater protection of ecological systems and of amenities such as recreation or scenery. Silviculturists have responded to the challenge by seeking new ways to harvest timber while maintaining forest ecosystems in a more natural state (Franklin, 1989; McComb et al., 1993). These ecosystem management approaches often entail leaving behind what Franklin (1989) called “ecological legacies”—clumps of live trees, standing dead snags, down logs and woody debris—thereby producing landscapes that are unfamiliar or unattractive to some forest visitors (Brunson and Shelby, 1992; Johnson et al., 1994). For this reason, foresters need to know how to mitigate the amenity impacts of ecosystem management practices. 31 0301–4797/96/010031+11 $12.00/0

 1996 Academic Press Limited

32

Information effect on scenic quality

Protecting amenity values is important for several reasons. Evolving forest policies are likely to reduce the flow of timber to resource-based economies (Irland, 1994), and many timber-dependent communities will rely more heavily on amenity resource-based business. A goal of ecosystem management is to produce forests that are sustainable economically as well as ecologically (Gerlach and Bengston, 1994). Therefore, foresters need ecologically viable silvicultural strategies which can ensure some timber harvest while minimizing impacts on amenities. Forests are key elements in defining the quality of life. They not only provide jobs in timber production or tourism, but they provide recreation settings and scenic vistas for local residents as well. Using non-traditional ecosystem management harvest practices that reduce scenic quality will probably reduce public acceptance which is crucial to the success of management strategies for public lands. Yet ecosystem management is itself a response to public concern. Public understanding of the reasons for ecosystem management practices may serve a mitigating function, as indicated in a recent study where non-foresters visited experimental forest stands and judged their recreational and scenic quality (Brunson and Shelby, 1992). Some participants told us in post-tour question-and-answer sessions that they would have rated the stands as more acceptable had they known more about what they were seeing. This paper describes an experimental test of a hypothesis suggested by that anecdotal evidence—that information about the purposes and practices of ecosystem management can enhance its social acceptability. Although “acceptability” of forestry is a multidimensional construct (Brunson, 1993), only the aesthetic dimension (scenic quality) was studied. The scenic impacts of timber management influence public perceptions of forestry, and there is an extensive literature in assessment of forest scenic quality (Ribe, 1989). Specifically, we tested whether people would judge the scenic quality of recently harvested forest stands differently if they received information about the scientific basis for ecosystem management. 2. Scenic quality in managed forests Clear cutting allows forest managers to remove mature timber efficiently and regenerate strands of young trees. But critics charge that the new stands are ecologically threadbare and that newly logged and scarified clear cuts are not just ugly, but “sacrilege” (Devall, 1993). Opposition to the practice is deeply rooted: a recent survey found that 63% of Americans, and 57% of residents in the timber-rich state of Oregon, believe clear cutting should be banned on all federal forests (Shindler et al., 1993). The Forest Service has heeded these criticisms, and ecosystem management strategies often call for alternatives to clear cutting. Concern over scenic impacts of timber harvest in the U.S. led to the passage of laws regulating the two principal federal forestry agencies, the USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (Dana and Fairfax, 1980). Protection of scenic landscapes is mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, among others. Largely in response to these legal mandates, many researchers have studied the scenic beauty of forested lands. Ribe (1989) listed six findings that occur repeatedly in studies conducted over a wide range of forest types and geographic regions. These findings largely confirm intuitive knowledge: stands with big trees are more attractive than those with smaller trees; moderately stocked stands are preferred to denser ones; stumps and other evidence of harvest reduce scenic quality; low ground

M. W. Brunson and D. K. Reiter

33

plants such as herbs or grasses enhance forest scenes but dense shrubs tend to detract; evidence of fire detracts from beauty; and diversity of tree species can enhance beauty. Studies comparing scenic impacts of various timber harvest practices (such as Benson and Ullrich, 1981) have yielded similar results. In general, the scenic impact of logging is less negative if more trees are left standing or if logging debris is removed from the stand. The use of fire to prepare a recently logged site for replanting has greater immediate scenic impacts, although the longer-term effect may be positive if the new stand regenerates more quickly. Because many techniques associated with ecosystem management are new, few studies have compared them with more traditional methods. In Oregon, ecosystem management harvests were found to be more acceptable than standard clear cuts, but judgments varied widely depending on the specific practices used (Brunson and Shelby, 1992; Johnson et al., 1994).

3. Influence of information on scenic judgments Environmental psychological theory holds that aesthetic judgments are strongly influenced by affective responses to one’s environment (Craik, 1981; Russell et al., 1981). Thus, perceptions of scenic beauty may be largely beyond the scope of the cognitive meanings that people assign to silvicultural treatments. However, acceptability also implies a behavioral response—acceptance or approval of a treatment—which involves more direct cognitive control. Indeed, information can influence scenic judgments. Buhyoff et al. (1982) found that viewers rated scenes of insect-damaged forests as being less attractive if viewers were told first there was an insect problem. Hodgson and Thayer (1980) found that photos labeled “tree farm” received lower ratings than the same photos labeled “forest growth.” Similarly, Anderson (1981) found that slides labeled “wilderness area”, “national park,” or “national forest” had greater scenic desirability than the same scenes labeled “recreation area,” “commercial timber stand,” or “leased grazing range.” Personal expectations are apparently influenced by preconceived notions about impacts of management practices. However, Vodak et al. (1985) found no effect on respondents’ scenic ratings when they were told which harvest treatments they were evaluating. The authors conclude that Anderson’s (1981) terms elicited emotional responses while theirs (“unmanaged,” “light thin,” “heavy thin,” “clear cut”) held neutral meanings for the college students and non-industrial forest landowners in their survey. This statement assumes that the information itself does not affect a person’s judgment; rather it is a person’s attitude toward the object of the information that is important. This view is consistent with the work of McCool et al. (1986), who found that individuals with favorable attitudes toward timber management tend to rate scenes of managed stands more favorably than did members of environmental groups. Therefore, one may be able to design public education campaigns that not only inform the public about certain forestry practices, but that can also enhance approval of scenic quality where those practices are used. For example, Simpson et al. (1976) found that approval ratings for clear cut and thinned forest stands were higher when respondents first read a brochure citing the ecological benefits of thinning and slash piling in ponderosa pine forests. In contrast, Taylor and Daniel (1984) found that information about the ecological benefits of fire did not increase scenic beauty ratings

34

Information effect on scenic quality

T 1. Comparison of characteristics of study samples Characteristic

Primary occupation Average age Gender Frequency of forest visits weekly monthly several times/yr rarely Environmental group member? Taken forestry course?

Sampling location Logan

Salt Lake City

University business students 23·5 yrs 41% female

Employment office workers 45·6 yrs 68% female

15% 45% 29% 11% 1% 8%

5% 32% 56% 7% 7% 1%

for forests where prescribed fire was used as a management tool, perhaps because fire evoked an emotional response too strong to be influenced by ecological information. 4. Methods 4.1.   Photographs of 48 forest scenes were shown to people chosen to represent a nonknowledgeable public. The photos depicted a forest in Oregon but ratings were obtained in Utah, which ostensibly meant we could more clearly attribute variation in responses to the information provided, because respondents were unlikely to know very much about forestry practices in the Pacific Northwest. The controversy over logging of federal forests in the Northwest has received national publicity, and the agencies managing those forests do so in trust for all Americans, so that opinions of nonNorthwesterners about Northwest forests have national policy relevance. Respondent groups were chosen from two different populations. One group consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory business management course at Utah State University in Logan, the other of employees of the Utah Department of Employment Security in Salt Lake City. Characteristics of the two samples are compared in Table 1. The Logan sample averaged 23 years old while the Salt Lake group averaged 45 years. Slightly more women than men completed the surveys. Few people in either sample had even taken a course in forestry, but most said they visit forested areas several times a year or more, and appeared to be an interested, but not knowledgeable, group of respondents. 4.2.   The 48 slides showed views of seven stands on the McDonald-Dunn Research Forest near Corvallis in Oregon. Most of the stands had been harvested in the winter of 1989–90 as part of an early test of ecosystem management silviculture (McComb et al., 1993). The stand treatments included natural, traditional harvest and ecosystem management conditions as follows:

M. W. Brunson and D. K. Reiter

35

• an unharvested old growth forest containing trees of various ages and sizes, up to 250 years old and 100 cm in diameter, with a diverse hardwood and softwood understory (natural condition); • a 20 ha clear cut that had been harvested in 1988, burned for site preparation, and replanted with Douglas-fir seedlings (traditional harvest); • an early commercial thinning 3·5 ha in size, with trees in the small sawtimber (25–40 cm dbh) class (traditional harvest); • two group selection stands, one on flat ground and one on a moderately steep slope, in which 0·2 ha patches had been cut so that about one-third of the timber volume had been removed (ecosystem management); • a snag-retention clear cut, 7 ha in size, in which 3–4 trees/ha had been left standing to serve as wildlife trees (ecosystem management); and • a 9 ha two-story stand in which two-thirds of the standing volume had been removed and 20–24 trees/has were retained as a source of wildlife trees and to eventually produce an uneven-aged condition (ecosystem management). All of the ecosystem management treatments were located in the same large stand of trees aged 110 years. Also in those treatments, three to five trees per ha were sawn off about 15 m above the ground to create a standing dead tree, or “snag”. The dominant tree species was Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Scenes were photographed at three randomly selected points within each study stand. Photographs in the group selection (flat), snag-retention clear cut, and two-story stands were taken twice in 1990, once in mid-July before the artificial snags were created, and again in late August at the same locations after snag creation. Photos in the other four stands were taken once in 1990. A third set of photos was taken at the same locations in early September 1992 to measure the effect of two years’ regrowth on scenic quality. Slides could then be evaluated which depicted 16 different conditions: Old growth (August 1990) Group selection, slope (August 1990) Clear cut (July 1990) Group selection, slope (Sept. 1992) Clear cut (Sept. 1992) Group selection, flat (July 1990) Thinning (July 1990) Group selection, flat (August 1990) Thinning (Sept. 1992) Group selection, flat (Sept. 1992) Two-story (July 1990) Snag retention clear cut (July 1990) Two-story (August 1990) Snag retention clear cut (August 1990) Two-story (Sept. 1992) Snag retention clear cut (Sept. 1992)

4.3.     All participants were asked to rate the scenic quality of the 48 slides using a nine-point Likert-type scale from −4 (most unacceptable) to +4 (most acceptable). This scale, developed by Brunson (1991), differs from traditional scenic beauty estimation measures (e.g. Buhyoff et al., 1982; Brown and Daniel, 1986) in that it is centered about a neutral point. A mean rating below zero indicates that a practice is largely viewed as a scenic detriment, while a positive mean rating indicates that a practice is largely acceptable. To measure the effects of information on scenic quality, members of each sample group were randomly assigned to one of two subgroups. A treatment group within each sample was given a set of general instructions as well as information about aspects

36

Information effect on scenic quality

T 2. Mean acceptability ratings for scenic quality of 16 conditions† Condition

Mean†

Condition

Mean

Old growth (Aug. 1990) Group selection, flat (1992) Group selection, slope (1992) Group selection slope (Aug. 1990) Group selection, flat (Aug. 1990) Group selection, flat (July 1990) Thinning (July 1990) Thinning (Sept. 1992)

3·2 2·9 2·6 2·0 1·9 1·6 1·3 1·0

Two-story (July 1990) 0·3 Two-story (Sept. 1992) 0·1 Two-story (Aug. 1990) −0·4 Snag retention (July 1990) −0·6 Snag retention (Sept. 1992) −0·9 Clear cut (Sept. 1992) −0·9 Clear cut (July 1990) −1·0 Snag retention (Aug. 1990) −1·4

† Ratings ranged from −4 (most unacceptable) to 4 (most acceptable)

of ecosystem management silviculture. The other (control) subgroup heard the general instructions but no information about ecosystem management. The Logan sample included 85 respondents, 39 assigned to the control group and 46 to the treatment group. The Salt Lake sample included 82 respondents, 38 in the control group and 44 in the treatment group. Our guiding hypothesis was that ratings of the ecosystem management stands would be higher among the treatment groups who heard the ecosystem management message than among the control groups. (Copies of the message are available from the lead author.) For each group, control sessions preceded the treatment sessions so that the ecosystem management message was not “leaked” to unsurveyed respondents, thus tainting their ratings. After the messages were read, ten preview slides were shown for 3 s each so that the respondents would get a feel for the type of forest scenes they would be rating. The 48 rated slides were then shown, arranged in random order, for eight seconds each. Sessions lasted 20 min for the control groups and 25 min for the treatment groups. After rating all 48 slides on the acceptability scale, participants were asked to complete two pages of additional questions about personal characteristics and environmental attitudes. Slide rating sessions took place in April 1994. 5. Results 5.1.       Mean acceptability scores for the 16 conditions followed the pattern suggested by Ribe (1989). These results are summarized in Table 2. The unharvested old growth stand received the highest mean score. Three harvested stands were also rated as having acceptable scenic quality: the two group selection stands and the recently thinned stand. The two-story stand was rated essentially neutral—neither clearly acceptable nor clearly unacceptable—while both types of clear cuts were rated unacceptable. Ratings for 1992 scenes were higher than those for the same scenes as they appeared in 1990, suggesting that some scenic “recovery” had taken place. Ratings for stands before and after snags were artificially created show that topping the trees had a slight negative effect and, in the case of the two-story stand, shifted the condition from barely acceptable to slightly unacceptable. The exception to this observation was in the group selection (flat) stand where August scenes were rated more attractive than July scenes,

M. W. Brunson and D. K. Reiter

37

T 3. Significant sources of variation in acceptability ratings (summary of ANOVAs) Conditions

Main effects

2-way Interactions

Clear cut (July 1990) Clear cut (Sept. 1992) Thinning (July 1990) Thinning (Sept. 1992) Group selection, slope (Aug. 1990) Group selection, slope (Sept. 1992) Group selection, flat (July 1990) Group selection, flat (Aug. 1990)

SCENE∗∗ — SCENE∗∗ SCENE∗∗ SCENE∗∗ SCENE∗∗ SCENE∗∗ POPULATION∗∗

Group selection, flat (Sept. 1992) Snag retention clear cut (July 1990) Snag retention clear cut (Aug. 1990) Snag retention clear cut (Sept. 1992) Two-story (July 1990)

SCENE∗∗ SCENE∗∗, POPULATION∗ POPULATION∗∗ SCENE∗∗ SCENE∗∗

— POP.×MESSAGE∗∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗∗ POP.×SCENE∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗

Two-story (Aug. 1990) Two-story (Sept. 1992)

— SCENE∗∗

— POP.×MESSAGE∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗∗ POP.×SCENE∗ POP.×MESSAGE∗∗ —

∗ P<0·05 (two-tailed) and ∗∗ P<0·01

probably because the snags were barely visible and herbaceous vegetation had already begun to hide the stumps. 5.2.       We expected that scenic quality ratings for the ecosystem management stands would be higher in the treatment groups whose members had heard information about the scientific basis for ecosystem management than in the control groups. Other potential sources of variation in ratings included the population from which evaluators were drawn (university students vs. state office workers), and the three views of each condition. The experimental design allowed us to perform multi-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests for each condition, so we could simultaneously examine the effects of the message, population and scene. ANOVA results for each condition (old growth excluded) are summarized in Table 3. For 11 of the 15 conditions evaluated, we found significant differences in ratings for different views of the same scene. The least variation was in the two-story stand in August 1990, where ratings for the three scenes differed by only 0·08. The greatest variability (2·09) was for the thinned stand in July 1990. Ratings differed by more than 1 rating point for six of the 15 stands. While the within-stand variability in scenic quality was relatively high, there were only two conditions for which mean scores for one view was in the acceptable range, while the score for another view was in the unacceptable range. Both of those conditions were in the two-story stand (July 1990 and September 1992) and all of the scores were between −0·5 and +0·8—essentially neutral for either condition. Differences across sampling locations were found for three conditions. Ratings by the Salt Lake City sample were slightly higher than those by the university students

38

Information effect on scenic quality

for the group selection stand (flat ground) in August 1990, but Salt Lake ratings were slightly lower for the snag-retention clear cut as seen in both July and August 1990. The predicted main effect of the information treatment was not seen. Respondents who heard the ecosystem management message did not tend to give higher ratings to the ecosystem management stands than those who did not hear the message. However, this does not mean the message had no effect. In fact, what we found was an interactive effect of message and population. Office workers who heard the ecosystem management message rated the ecosystem management conditions higher in most cases than their counterparts who did not receive that information beforehand. But the university students who heard the message rated the slides as generally less acceptable than those who were given no prior information.

6. Discussion Previous studies of landscape aesthetics (e.g. Simpson et al., 1976; Buhyoff et al., 1982) have suggested that judgments of scenic quality have both cognitive and affective influences—i.e. humans evaluate their environment based on what they feel, and also on what they believe is true. This study adds further support to that idea. However, the association we found was not as simple as the one we predicted. By assigning evaluators randomly to control and treatment groups, we were able to reduce the variation in scenic beauty judgments other than that produced by the ecosystem management message. While the message itself did not have the anticipated effect in both samples, it did have a measurable impact. People who had the message fresh in their minds—who were thinking about ecosystem management—reacted differently to the forest scenes than those who did not. One unanticipated result was that the message effect was not restricted to ecosystem management conditions, but was also associated with judgments of the thinned and clear cut stands which had received a more traditional silvicultural treatment. Because participants were not told when they were looking at slides depicting ecosystem management silviculture, and because commercial timber harvest is relatively rare in northern Utah, some respondents may have assumed all scenes showed stands harvested using ecologically sensitive methods. More importantly, the message was associated with a positive change in judgements by one set of respondents but a negative change by the other. Several explanations may be offered for this unexpected result, all of them based on differences between the populations from which the samples were drawn. Table 1 shows several differences between the Salt Lake City office workers and the Utah State University business students. Potentially significant differences include the orientation of each group toward environmental issues, gender ratios in each group, their frequency with which they use forests for recreation and their average ages. Several indicators suggest that the Salt Lake City group was more environmentally aware than the university group. More of the former belonged to environmental groups (although few in the either sample were members) and fewer had taken forestry courses, circumstances that might instill or reinforce an anti-commodity orientation. Moreover, an environmental attitude scale administered to respondents found that the Salt Lake City respondents held environmental attitudes orientated more closely towards what Catton and Dunlap (1980) called the “new environmental paradigm”. Because ecosystem management grows out of concern over issues such as biodiversity and sustainability,

M. W. Brunson and D. K. Reiter

39

the Salt Lake group may have reacted more favorably to the ecosystem management message than the Logan group. A second contributing factor may be the fact that the Salt Lake sample contained twice as many women as men. Several researchers have linked gender with environmental concern (Blocker and Eckberg, 1989; Mohai, 1992) although evidence for a gender effect is far from conclusive. Stern et al. (1993) suggest that women have stronger beliefs than men about consequences for the biosphere. They may therefore tend to respond more positively to attempts intended to sustain a biologically diverse environment. The university sample, on the other hand, contained more people who spend a lot of time visiting forests for recreation. Because forest recreation experiences are usually motivated in part by a desire to escape from mechanized society and its effects (Manning, 1986), avid forest recreationists may tend to dislike timber harvest because it introduces mechanical disturbance to a natural environment. Ecosystem management is intended to protect forest environments, but it also can reduce the quality of recreation experiences (Brunson and Shelby, 1992). The ecosystem management message, while it emphasized biological sustainability, described conditions with potentially negative impacts on recreation. Noe and Hammitt (1992) found that avid recreation users may oppose ecologically motivated restrictions even if they otherwise support environmental protection. Finally, the university students, who were young and generally from Utah, may have been too unfamiliar with Pacific Northwest forests to be able to place the information into its proper context. Logging is rare in northern Utah. Given a lack of familiarity with timber harvesting and its visual effects, university respondents may have lacked a sufficient basis on which to judge whether the stands in the photos represented poor attempts at traditional forestry or versions of ecosystem management. Conversely, the Salt Lake sample, a full generation older, may have had enough experience with forestry across the U.S. to more easily fit the message with the scenes being rated. Any one of these factors could explain some or all of the adverse reactions we measured, or the reason could be something else entirely. Regardless of why the effect occurred, the important issue for managers is that it can occur. Ecosystem management was adopted because the public demanded a more environmentally sensitive brand of resource management. Managers are making efforts in good faith to accommodate more values, and to shift away from practices that experience has shown to have ecological drawbacks. However, they cannot expect the public to accept blindly that today’s decisions are based on the best scientific understanding, nor can they expect people to understand intuitively the often-complex reasons for ecosystem management practices. Acceptability judgments of natural resource practices and conditions are strongly influenced by people’s evaluations of the purpose for what is being judged (Brunson, 1993). The conditions produced by ecosystem management are more likely to be accepted by persons who understand why those conditions exist as they do. Understanding is likely to develop only through a well-designed program of public education in which messages are carefully tailored to the desired audience. In this study, knowing about ecosystem management did not lead university students in our sample to express greater acceptance of the conditions it produces—at least in the context of scenic quality—but rather had the reverse effect. A simpler message may have been more appropriate for that group, or perhaps multiple repetitions were needed

40

Information effect on scenic quality

(as in advertising campaigns) for the message to sink in. In any case, a poor fit between audience and message can apparently exacerbate public dislike of natural resource conditions, thereby fostering greater public distrust of the public agencies that produced those conditions. Although this study focused on forest scenic beauty, there is no reason why the results cannot be applied to natural settings other than forests, or to issues other than silviculture. Projects such as prescribed burning for rangeload rehabilitation, or plantings for surface mine site restoration, may also produce short-term conditions that are ecologically sound but look “bad” to an untrained eye. The results of the Salt Lake City experiment show that such negative scenic impacts can be eased if resource managers take steps to explain their actions to the public in terms that are understandable and that address the issues people care about. This research was supported by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan 84322-4810 (MacIntire-Stennis Project UTA-700) and by the State of Utah through its Mineral Lease Funds. Approved as Journal paper 4963.

References Anderson, L. M. (1981). Land use designations affect perception of scenic beauty in forest landscapes. Forest Science 27, 392–400. Benson, R. E. and Ullrich, J. R. (1981). Visual Impacts of Forest Management Activities: Findings on Public Preferences. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-262. Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Blocker, T. J. and Eckberg, D. L. (1989). Environmental issues as women’s issues: general concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly 70, 586–593. Brown, T. C. and Daniel, T. C. (1986). Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest Science 32, 471–487. Brunson, M. W. (1991). Effects of traditional and “new forestry” practices on recreational and scenic quality of managed forests. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis. Brunson, M. W. (1993). “Socially acceptable” forestry: what does it imply for ecosystem management? Western Journal of Applied Forestry 8, 116–119. Brunson, M. W. and Shelby, B. (1992). Assessing recreational and scenic quality: how does “new forestry” rate? Journal of Forestry 90, 37–41. Buhyoff, G. J., Wellman, J. D. and Daniel, T. C. (1982). Predicting scenic quality for mountain pine beetle and western spruce budworm damaged forest vistas. Forest Science 28, 827–838. Catton, W. R. Jr., and Dunlap, R. E. (1980). A new paradigm for post-exuberant society. American Behavioral Scientist 24, 15–47. Craik, K. H. (1981). Comment on “The psychological representation of molar physical environments” by Ward and Russell. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 110, 158–162. Dana, S. T., and Fairfax, S. K. (1980). Forest and Range Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Devall, B., ed. (1993). Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books/Earth Island Press. Franklin, J. F. (1989). Toward a new forestry. American Forests 12(Nov/Dec), 37–44. Gerlach, L. P., and Bengston, D. N. (1994). If ecosystem management is the solution, what’s the problem? Journal of Forestry 92, 18–21. Hodgson, R. W. and Thayer, R. L. Jr. (1980). Implied human influence reduces landscape beauty. Landscape Planning 7, 171–179. Irland, L. C. (1994). Getting from here to there: implementing ecosystem management on the ground. Journal of Forestry 92, 12–17. Johnson, R. L., Brunson, M. W. and Kimura, T. (1994). Using image-capture technology to assess scenic value at the urban/forest interface: a case study. Journal of Environmental Management 40, 183–195. Manning, R. E. (1986). Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press. McCool, S. F., Benson, R. E. and Ashor, J. L. (1986). How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management 10, 385–391. McComb, W. C., Spies, T. A. and Emmingham, W. H. (1993). Douglas-fir forests: managing for timber and mature-forest habitat. Journal of Forestry 91, 31–42. Mohai, P. (1992). Men, women, and the environment: an examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources 5, 1–19.

M. W. Brunson and D. K. Reiter

41

Noe, F. P., and Hammitt, W. E. (1992). Environmental attitudes and the personal relevance of management actions in a park setting. Journal of Environmental Management 35, 205–216. Ribe, R. G. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: what has empirical preference research taught us? Environmental Management 13, 55–74. Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M. and Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments: A factoranalytic study. Environment and Behavior 13, 259–288. Shindler, B., List, P. and Steel, B. S. (1993). Managing federal forests: public attitudes in Oregon and nationwide. Journal of Forestry 91, 36–42. Simpson, C. J., Rosenthal, T. L., Daniel, T. C. and White, G. M. (1976). Social-influence variations in evaluating managed and unmanaged forest areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 61, 759–763. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior 25, 322–348. Taylor, J. G. and Daniel, T. C. (1984). Prescribed fire: public education and perception. Journal of Forestry 82, 361–365. Vodak, M. C., Roberts, P. L., Wellman, J. D. and Buhyoff, G. J. (1985). Scenic impacts of eastern hardwood management. Forest Science 31, 289–302.